|
Bip Roberts posted:Bernie will try to do in office what Obama tried to do. Obama did not remotely try to accomplish what people think he tried to accomplish.
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
Third World Reggin posted:this is an awful version of that song It's not the worst version at least Phil Ochs 4ever though
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I also can't figure out why people who are in college are gung ho about free tuition. Does he want to make it retroactive? What about the people who are still dealing with tens of thousands of dollars in debt that graduated already? At least shilldawg has mentioned some things about continuing Obamas loan reforms. It doesn't matter to me that I won't get free tuition, personally, if it means that everybody else after me doesn't have to experience the burden of student loan debt.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
one thing that might support my lil' assumption from the last few posts i made itt - a district with more non-voters is more likely to provide a new democratic voter than a district with fewer non-voters i don't have the data here right now and i'm done doing math tonight but im inclined to think that higher turnout% correlates with higher romney%. but gently caress it. buttfuck it
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:29
|
|
|
mr whistler posted:On the other hand, those of us who lived through the complete, unrepentant obstructionism of both modern Democratic presidencies by reactionary, dickbag Republicans want to see plans of how you actually enact these ideas. Bill Clinton dismantled the welfare state, enacted incredibly harsh and short sighted 3 strikes laws, signed legislation removing restrictions on banks, and free trade agreements that moved thousands of jobs out of this country. He agreed with Reagan that the government was the problem and that private, market based solutions were appropriate for basically every problem, and I've only touched on the economic right wing policy of his administration. If that's fighting against an obstructionist Congress, I shudder to imagine what he would have done with a more pliable legislative branch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
wow rude posted:It doesn't matter to me that I won't get free tuition, personally, if it means that everybody else after me doesn't have to experience the burden of student loan debt. It's about free future generations from the shitiness of yooge education loans. Even state schools have gotten pretty expensive due to factor such as underfunding by the state government.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
mr whistler posted:I was a huge o-bot in 2008 and I get where the feel the Bern is coming from. On the other hand, I get a lot of what Hillary is saying. One thing about the last years that we've learned is that change is hard. Entrenched interests are extremely difficult to root out, even with an overwhelming majority. this post looks like it was spit out by a chatbot raised on cable news and opinion columns
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
mr whistler posted:Obama had a majority in the house, 60 votes in the senate and the best he could do was a lovely version of Hillary's 2008 health care plan (lol thanks Joe Loserman). I'm all for single payer (lived in Canada and the UK, it's clearly better) but I really don't see any clear pathway to get there. There's just no way the Democrats recapture the House in 2016. Maybe a decent shot at getting a majority in the Senate but no way they get back to 60 votes. On the plus side, the realignment post ratfucking by the "super majority" does mean that if the Democrats do win back similar majorities again, the fringe Senators that have to be pandered to won't be nearly as far down the worthless sack of poo poo axis as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
free midis online posted:Those damned 25 year old kids, wanting candidates that would do more than nothing for them. Why can't they learn their place? And why won't they agree with me? We're all on the same side here. Everyone is exactly as liberal I, a broke recent college graduate, am. That's why Bernie is going to win in a landslide and have no problems nationalizing 17% of the US economy in a way that will somehow magically only result in tax increases for the top 1%. (Because gently caress having social programs be something that all of society has to pay a share for, our own taxes are too high! We can make the people we don't like pay for all of it! Sure, this is 100% different than all the countries we cite with successful single-payer health care, but gently caress the 1% so much!)
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Bernie will try to do in office what Obama tried to do. Minus the death warrants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Gotcha thanks for explaining. thanks for getting me to think it through more thoroughly and find a better way of expressing it its like rubber duck debugging except your not a rubber duck youre a goodposter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:Obama did not remotely try to accomplish what people think he tried to accomplish. Clearly Obama didn't look hard enough for the "full communism" switch but bernie will totally find it like January 23rd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Third World Reggin posted:this is an awful version of that song It's actually the best because the lyrics are 20 years old but still as relevant as ever And if you don't like jello biafra then you can 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Spiros posted:Minus the death warrants. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Hey everyone I voted Obama who ended being a corporation friendly centrist in office who gave wall street 15 trillion dollars in aid packages after they destroyed the economy. To make up for this I will be voting for Hillary in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
tekz posted:this post looks like it was spit out by a chatbot raised on cable news and opinion columns Yeah sorry I was raised on actually living through the fact that it turns out a large number (majority?) of American voters are old white FYGM voters that hate minorities and anyone trying to help the poors. I'm skeptical of any candidate that hand waves through the problem that these people vote, a lot, and it's really hard to get meaningful progressive change past them. But you know, feel the bern and all, so free universal health care for all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:33
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I also can't figure out why people who are in college are gung ho about free tuition. Does he want to make it retroactive? What about the people who are still dealing with tens of thousands of dollars in debt that graduated already? At least shilldawg has mentioned some things about continuing Obamas loan reforms. It's mostly young people going "Wow, this is some bullshit!" and wanting policy change. Other generations would be more gung ho too if they ever experienced tuitions that high.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Everyone is exactly as liberal I, a broke recent college graduate, am. That's why Bernie is going to win in a landslide and have no problems nationalizing 17% of the US economy in a way that will somehow magically only result in tax increases for the top 1%. (Because gently caress having social programs be something that all of society has to pay a share for, our own taxes are too high! We can make the people we don't like pay for all of it! Sure, this is 100% different than all the countries we cite with successful single-payer health care, but gently caress the 1% so much!) Funny you'd link that article of all things because Ezra Klein has thoroughly debunked what Ezra Klein wrote there https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/vox-bernie-sanders-single-payer-ezra-klein-matt-yglesias/
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:35
|
|
|
mr whistler posted:Yeah sorry I was raised on actually living through the fact that it turns out a large number (majority?) of American voters are old white FYGM voters that hate minorities and anyone trying to help the poors. in my opinion people should vote for the candidate they agree with instead of the retarded poo poo you're saying
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Welp it's hard guys Might as well not try at all Even though this is the most liberal electorate in a generation and the republicans are in shambles
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
rscott posted:It's actually the best because the lyrics are 20 years old but still as relevant as ever Everyone likes Jello Biafra but the Phil Ochs original is still the best
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:36
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:It's mostly young people going "Wow, this is some bullshit!" and wanting policy change. Other generations would be more gung ho too if they ever experienced tuitions that high. Ding ding ding Also same but wages and low
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
Combed Thunderclap posted:It's mostly young people going "Wow, this is some bullshit!" and wanting policy change. Other generations would be more gung ho too if they ever experienced tuitions that high. I certainly did a feel really bad for kids today. I would give them all my money if only I could drain and absorb their youth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
uncurable mlady posted:I also can't figure out why people who are in college are gung ho about free tuition. Does he want to make it retroactive? What about the people who are still dealing with tens of thousands of dollars in debt that graduated already? At least shilldawg has mentioned some things about continuing Obamas loan reforms. Heavily subsidized post-secondary education would more than pay for itself even if I don't get it. People with college degrees are more likely to have a good job and pay more taxes, and less likely to require public assistance. They are more productive and are more likely to generate innovations that benefit everyone. And then there's just the intangible benefit of a better informed and educated population and the impact on public discourse, etc. It's an investment, not an entitlement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
Bill Clinton lost the Arkansas governor's race during the big Reagan rush and decided that the way to win from then on was to be as Reaganesque as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
rscott posted:Welp it's hard guys ah yes. control the majority of governorships and statehouses comfortable and nearly untouchable majority in the house and majority in the senate. majority of conservative justices in SCOTUS. I guess Obama was successful in making a bunch of the lower courts more centrist/liberal. Clearly in absolute shambles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Gyges posted:On the plus side, the realignment post ratfucking by the "super majority" does mean that if the Democrats do win back similar majorities again, the fringe Senators that have to be pandered to won't be nearly as far down the worthless sack of poo poo axis as Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson. i think the amount of conservative democrats - not 'conservative for a democrat', but 'as conservative as a conservative republican, but a democrat' - that were still around in 2008 were a big part of why that democratic majority disappointed non-conservatives, but i don't think it'd necessarily be a different story if democrats get 55%+ of the national congressional vote in 2016 and pull off a majority while democrats aren't likely to win massively conservative rural southern districts any more, the driftwood washed in by these wave elections tend to be more like their districts than they are like their national party. most candidates come out of local politics and have demonstrated an ability to win local districts. if a district that liked obama votes for their democratic candidate in a bernie wave, that representative is not going to be a bernie clone - although technically, most filing deadlines are still open - that representative is going to be the kind of democrat that wins elections in that district some of those representatives will actually be closer to the left wing of the democratic party than their voters and feel/vote the bern. some of those representatives (most?) will try to stave off the midterm backlash by voting against bernie all the time and telling their district they're fighting the liberals from the inside. but i think a lot of them will actually be genuine members of the centrist wing of the democratic party and will vote against 'socialism' because they believe in the poo poo nobody on this web site respects
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
e_angst posted:Everyone is exactly as liberal I, a broke recent college graduate, am. That's why Bernie is going to win in a landslide and have no problems nationalizing 17% of the US economy in a way that will somehow magically only result in tax increases for the top 1%. (Because gently caress having social programs be something that all of society has to pay a share for, our own taxes are too high! We can make the people we don't like pay for all of it! Sure, this is 100% different than all the countries we cite with successful single-payer health care, but gently caress the 1% so much!) Hi, did you happen to miss the increase in payroll taxes that would affect every worker that was a huge part of funding and would be a very large tax increase on everyone with the promise that it would be offset by removing the burden of health care premiums? Because I know reading is sometimes hard, especially when you're super angry about things. Or I guess get all your news from Vox? Anyways, hope this helps! Now, go find in Hillary's platform where she has *any* funding sources outside of an extremely vague promise to tax high frequency tradess and 'close loopholes'. Which loopholes? Dunno. What industries? She doesn't say. How much? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
I'm so happy I don't have to hear campaign ads run nonstop on NH media anymore until the general starts in earnest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Lord of Pie posted:Bill Clinton lost the Arkansas governor's race during the big Reagan rush and decided that the way to win from then on was to be as Reaganesque as possible. Following in the footsteps of greats like George Wallace
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Schnorkles posted:ah yes. There's an argument to be made that the Republican party is going to fissure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
tekz posted:in my opinion people should vote for the candidate they agree with instead of the retarded poo poo you're saying I want to vote for the candidate that's going to get the most progressive poo poo done. Being unrealistic makes me suspect that you don't know how to get poo poo done. Positions don't mean poo poo with a Republican congress and a right-wing media machine intent on tearing you to shreds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
She doesn't even have any detailed promises on how to improve Obamacare. Just how she wants to slightly decrease premiums and find some way to make big pharma provide cheaper medicine. Even though she took 14 million dollars from big pharma over the years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Spiros posted:There's an argument to be made that the Republican party is going to fissure. I don't disagree with that argument. I also don't disagree that democrats won an outright majority of votes to the house of representatives [because thats, you know, fact] But parties do and can realign. And if you think that the republicans are magically on the precipice of defeat you are completely insane. The more likely fact is that the country actually skews to the center/center-right and Something Awful is a blip where people wonder why more people don't think like them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Lyapunov Unstable posted:I forget did obama genuinely think that he would get anything out of the GOP congress and waste years trying or was it just optics He actually thought he'd get something out of congress, wasn't as liberal as a lot of people thought, and started negotiations from a lovely position of trying to encourage compromise by not starting out by demanding everything he wanted. So a little bit of both. oystertoadfish posted:one thing that might support my lil' assumption from the last few posts i made itt - a district with more non-voters is more likely to provide a new democratic voter than a district with fewer non-voters Generally people are of the same general political views as those who live around them. Various factors such as education, upbringing, socioeconomics, and lowish barriers to moving help this along. In a 55-45 district, non voters are generally as likely as voters to be for the majority party. There are of course exceptions where districts are composed of more heterogeneous mixtures of voters. The way to counteract that would be to run a superior ground game that gets out all your potential votes while the opposition runs a noticeably less effective ground game. Current polarization does somewhat impede this since no matter who the Democratic nominee is Republican voters will have a massive inclination to believe they're the most liberal communist America hater ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
For someone who's awfully proud of being a socialist, Bernie sure doesn't want to nationalize much of the economy. Sure, he's got healthcare covered, but what about all those other industries that are already heavily subsidized and would be better just run by the government like energy or consumer banking.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
I doubt that Hillary would have a better chance of accomplishing anything than Sanders. The legislature is still controlled by an utterly insane GOP that has spent the last couple decades working themselves into a frothing rage at the mere mention of anything Clinton. Maybe if the Democrats have a good midterm showing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:As a black Bernie supporter, this is massively condescending I see you've met Not a Step, he has a habit of making Bad Posts About Race in the Dem thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:45
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:For someone who's awfully proud of being a socialist, Bernie sure doesn't want to nationalize much of the economy. Sure, he's got healthcare covered, but what about all those other industries that are already heavily subsidized and would be better just run by the government like energy or consumer banking. He's not actually a Democratic Socialist, but rather a Social Democrat, and just has his terminology confused. That's it really
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 00:52 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:For someone who's awfully proud of being a socialist, Bernie sure doesn't want to nationalize much of the economy. Sure, he's got healthcare covered, but what about all those other industries that are already heavily subsidized and would be better just run by the government like energy or consumer banking. He wants the USPS to offer banking services, so that's a start?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 06:47
|
|
